local authorities and child poverty: balancing threats ... · local authorities and child poverty:...

Local authorities and child poverty: balancing threats and opportunities Rys Farthing

ldawson

Typewritten Text

July 2013

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

ldawson

Typewritten Text

Child Poverty Action Group is the leading national charity working to end poverty among children, young people and families in the UK. Our vision is of a society free of child poverty where all children can enjoy their childhoods and have fair chances in life to reach their full potential. With thanks to the Barrow Cadbury Trust, whose generous support enabled this work, and all of the local authority and partner staff whose input informed this work. Published by Child Poverty Action Group 94 White Lion Street London N1 9PF Tel: 020 7837 7979 [email protected] www.cpag.org.uk @cpaguk © Child Poverty Action Group 2013 Child Poverty Action Group is a charity registered in England and Wales (registration number 294841) and in Scotland (registration number SCO39339), and is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England (registration number 199854). VAT number: 690 808117

Local authorities and child poverty: balancing threats and opportunities

3

Contents

Foreword…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…1

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………2

Part one: Changes to the benefit system …………………………………………………….6

Table one: a timeline of welfare reform ………………………………………..14

Case studies one and two ………………………………………………………………19

Part two: How local authorities and planning to manage these reforms…21

Part three: Keeping child poverty high on the local agenda…………………….44

Estimating the costs of child poverty in England ………………………….47

Estimating the costs of child poverty in Scotland …………………….……51

Estimating the costs of child poverty in Northern Ireland ……….……51

Estimating the costs of child poverty in Wales …………………….……….52

Part four: Recommendations to central government …………………….……….53

Foreword Some 3.5 million children – over a quarter of all children – currently live below the poverty line in the UK. And this has a devastating impact on their lives. Children growing up in poor homes are more likely to die at birth or in infancy than children born into richer families. They are more likely to be left behind in education. By the age of three, poorer children are estimated to be, on average, nine months behind children from more wealthy backgrounds. They are almost twice as likely to live in bad housing. Children in poverty also miss out on experiences that most of us regard as normal and just part of growing up. They don’t go on school trips; can’t invite friends round for tea; and can’t afford a holiday away from home. Troublingly, children in low-income families are being hit hard by the government’s tax and benefits changes. The Institute of Fiscal Studies predicts that between 2010 and 2020, rather than ending child poverty, the government’s welfare reform programme will mean that some 1.1 million more children live in poverty. And local authorities will have to bear the brunt of many of these reforms; from having to directly implement some poverty producing policies (like council tax benefit reforms) to picking up the pieces where things go wrong (through managing a localised social fund replacement scheme). Local authorities are going to be critical in supporting families through the genuine hardship to come. At the same time however, shrinking settlements and decreasing tax revenues are placing extra pressure on many local authorities’ capacity to help families. This means that too many local authorities are stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to meeting the needs of families in their community. This is why Child Poverty Action Group have produced this report, looking at the impact of Welfare Reforms on Child Poverty levels locally, and exploring from their own perspectives, what local authorities can do to reduce and mitigate the effects of child poverty in a difficult climate.

Alison Garnham, CPAG


5

Introduction In the UK today, 27 per cent of children, or 3.6 million children, live below the poverty line, damaging their immediate wellbeing and reducing their future life chances. However, this poverty is not evenly spread across the UK, and many local authorities have higher levels of poverty than others1. Even local authorities with low levels of child poverty have ‘pockets’ of deprivation within them – for example, the City of London, which has a poverty rate less than half of the national average (12 per cent) has one ward where 68 per cent of children live in poverty. Child poverty affects all local authorities. And it is expected to increase. Between now and 2020, changes to the tax and benefit systems mean that child poverty is projected to increase by around 1 million children nationally.2 On top of these million children moving into poverty, households already in poverty face further decreasing incomes, intensifying their experience of poverty. The Child Poverty Act 2010 commits the government to reduce child poverty and places specific duties on local authorities to work towards ending child poverty. Specifically, it places a duty on each local authority to: cooperate with partners and other bodies to reduce child poverty, and work to mitigate its effects; produce an assessment of the needs of children living in poverty in its area (a child poverty needs assessment); and prepare a joint Child Poverty Strategy with relevant partners. Local authorities are, in many ways, stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they are committed to reducing and mitigating the effects of child poverty, while on the other they will experience the impact of welfare reforms that are predicted to increase child poverty between now and 2020, with fewer resources than ever. This report aims to outline the impact of welfare reforms on local authorities and explore the options open to local authorities, and their partner organisations, to manage the impact of these reforms. Part one outlines the programme of welfare reform and its impact on household budgets. It includes an estimate of the average impact for affected claimants. Part two outlines some thinking by local authorities and their partner organisations about how they intend to manage the impact of these welfare reforms. This thinking was synthesised at a series of roundtable events held in Salford, Knowsley, Torbay, Sheffield and Birmingham in March 2013. Part three discusses some ways to help keep child poverty high on the political agenda locally through child poverty commissions. It also estimates the cost of child poverty locally. Part four outlines the recommendations for central government, as proposed by the local authority and partner staff we spoke to.

1 Local area estimates of child poverty levels are available at 2 J. Browne, A. Hood & R. Joyce 2013 Child and Working-Age Poverty in Northern Ireland from 2010-2020 Institute for Fiscal Studies


Child Poverty Action Group 6

Part one: Changes to the benefit system A wide reaching programme of welfare reform is underway that will have a significant impact on child poverty levels across local authorities. The scope of the welfare reform programme is broad, and a number of reforms will affect a variety of family types, and for many households, these effects will be cumulative. Table one provides an overview of the reforms since 2010 that may affect family finances. It includes an indication of the average financial loss each affected household will incur.3 Many of these losses are cumulative – for example, a household may lose out from changes to housing benefit and changes to working tax credit – however some are not. Case studies 1 and 2 indicate how such interactions may work. 1. The abolition of child trust funds The child trust fund was a long-term, tax-free savings account for children. Commencing in 2002, at birth, every eligible child was given a voucher worth £250 to open an account, with a further £250 being paid directly into the accounts of children who live in low income families. At age seven, the government made an additional £250 payment into each account, with a further £250 for children in low income families. By April 2011, 5.5 million accounts had been opened, with 35 per cent of young people being entitled to the extra payments.4 While existing accounts continue, allowing children born between September 2002 and January 2011 to access funds at their 18th birthday, children born after 2 January 2011 are not eligible. Averages losses have been calculated by factoring average family size and average payment rates, leaving each family on average £675 worse off going forward compared to if the scheme continued. This is a sum total, and this money would not have been accessible until children turn 18. 2. Support for mortgage interest payments reduced to Bank of England rates Homeowners on certain income-related benefits may be entitled to assistance with the interest payments on their mortgage or loans taken out to make repairs to their properties. From 1 October 2010 the interest rate level was set at the Bank of England’s published monthly average mortgage interest rate, around 3.67 per cent. It had previously been temporarily set at 6.08 per cent. Around 115,000 households were affected by this change.5 The average loss of £11.30 to claimants has been estimated by dividing Treasury’s expected £65m per annum saving across the number of households.

3 However the average impact figures may not be cumulative, for example reductions in working tax credits may reduce the amount you may lose from housing benefit reforms 4 HM Revenue and Customs 2013 Child Trust Funds Statistics Detailed Distributional Analysis (Accounts opened by 5 April 2012) http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/ctf/dda.pdf 5 DWP 2010 Equality Impact Assessment Support for Mortgage Interest http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/support-for-mortgage-interest.pdf


7

3. Educational maintenance allowance abolished in England Educational maintenance allowance was a means-tested financial payment made to 16–19 year olds in full time education or unpaid work-based learning to meet educational costs. The scheme was abolished in England in 2010. Previously, students from households earning below £20,817 per annum were awarded £30 a week, students households earning between £20,818 and £25,521 were awarded £20 a week and students from households earning between £25,522 and £30,810 were awarded £10 a week. The indicative loss of £27 per claimant has been calculated by estimating the average payment from available data provided by the House of Commons Library.6 4. Changes to working tax credit and child tax credit The 2010 Budget announced a raft of changes to the tax credits scheme.

• The baby element was withdrawn. This had been worth £545 per year payable to families with a child under the age of one, in addition to the family element and the per child element. This was abolished for all claimants on April 2011, including those families who had received it for less than 12 months.

• The family element to be withdrawn from families on more than £40,000, and the taper rate increased to 41 per cent. Previously, the family element (£545) was protected until household income reached at least £50,000 (the second income threshold). Once income reached the second income threshold it was tapered away at a rate of 6.67 per cent. From April 2011, the taper was increased from 6.67 per cent to 41 per cent. The second income threshold was also lowered so that family element was protected only below £40,000.

• The in-year income disregard for overpayments reduced from £25,000 to £10,000. The income disregard changed from £25,000 to £10,000 from April 2011. From April 2013, it was decreased again from £10,000 to £5,000. This increases the chance of overpayments that need to be paid back being made.

• Over 60s became eligible for working tax credit if they worked for 16 hours. Previously they needed to work at least 30 hours.

• The 50+ element of tax credits was abolished from April 2012. Previously, people aged 50 or over who returned to work after a period claiming certain benefits, were eligible to claim working tax credits by working at least 16 hours a week. They received the 50+ element for one year from when they return to work.

• Backdating was reduced from 93 days (or three months) to: o initial claims – 31 days; o changes of circumstances – one month; o reporting qualifying benefit for the disability element – one month; o reporting grant of refugee status – one month.

This means that families whose circumstances change might miss out unless they report changes quickly.

6 House of Commons Library 2011 Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) Statistics http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05778



• Child tax credit was increased above inflation by £150 in 2011/12, and with an additional increase of £60 scheduled for 2012/13. This offset some of the impact of other losses incurred by families with children, but the 2012/13 increase was never implemented.

The Comprehensive Spending Review in 2010 also made a number of additional changes to the tax credits scheme.

• Support for childcare was reduced from 80 per cent to 70 per cent. Couples or lone parents working at least 16 hours a week could previously claim up to 80 per cent of childcare costs. From April 2011, the most they could claim was reduced to 70 per cent, capped at £175 for one child or £300 for two or more children.

• The basic and 30-hour elements of working tax credit were frozen for three years. This means they will not keep up with inflation.

• Couples with children were required to work for at least 24 hours to qualify for working tax credit. Previously, they needed to work for only 16 hours.

Calculations for the indicative cost per households by deciles come from budget papers.7 5. Sure Start maternity grants restricted and Health in Pregnancy grants abolished The Sure Start maternity grant is a £500 payment made to parents in receipt of certain means-tested benefits, on the birth or adoption of a child. From April 2011, it was restricted so that payments would only be made for the first child born, but not subsequent children. In January 2011, the Health in Pregnancy grant was abolished. Previously, it was a one-off tax-free payment of £190 payable to almost all pregnant women after they reach the 25th week of pregnancy. Calculations for the indicative costs of £500 and £380 per affected family were made on the basis of average family size and average payment size. 6. Age of youngest child reduced for lone parents to qualify for income support, to five-year-olds Income support is the main income-replacement benefit for lone parents. The maximum age of the youngest child which entitles non-working lone parents to income support has been decreasing in stages from 16 years old in 2008 to five years old from January 2012. It is estimated that 75,000 lone parents per year will lose their entitlement to income support.8 This will not affect the payments received. However, it will increase conditionality and the risk of sanctions for these parents. 7 http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/junebudget_annexa.pdf and http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sr2010_completereport.pdf 8 DWP 2011 Removing Income Support Eligibility for Lone Parents with a Youngest Child Aged Five or Over http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-lone-parent-conditionality-wr2011.pdf


9

7. Changes to local housing allowance ‘Local housing allowance’ (LHA) is paid to people living in the private rented sector whose incomes are too low to meet the costs of their rent. A wide range of reforms to LHA were introduced in the June 2010 Budget, including:

• removing the five bedroom rate; • removing, from April 2011, the £15 excess that claimants whose rents fell

below local rates could keep. Affected claimants lose on average £10 a week;9

• limiting LHA rates to the 30th percentile of rents rather than the median, from October 2011. Households lost an average of £12 a week from changes to the LHA rates and excess combined;10

• uprating in line with the Consumer Price Index rather than in line with local rents

• capping LHA from April 2011 for new claimants and for existing tenants on the anniversary of their claim (with up to nine months transitional protection in most cases). The cap depends on the size of the accommodation assessed as necessary for the household and are set at:

o £250 for a one bedroom property; o £290 for a two bedroom property; o £340 for a three bedroom property; o £400 for a four bedroom property;

• increasing the age at which the shared accommodation rate is paid from 25 to 35, from January 2012. This means that single claimants (without dependent children) can only receive LHA at the rate equal to someone renting a room in a shared house. The average affected claimant will lose £41 a week, and it is estimated that around 62,500 young people will be affected.11

The impact of each of these reforms comes from Impact Assessment Statements. 8. Changes to council tax Council tax benefit was abolished on 1 April 2013 and replaced by localised schemes, with (in most areas) a 10 per cent cut in the budget. In England, there are 326 schemes each with their own criteria and entitlement. It has been suggested that some working age claimants who were previously exempt from paying council tax will now pay, on average, £138 per year.12 9. Changes to child benefit Child benefit was previously a universal payment made to primary carers to meet the costs of raising children. There have been two core changes to child benefit that will affect families. Firstly, child benefit payments have decreased over time. They were frozen for three years between 2010/11 and 2013/14, meaning they 9 DWP 2010 Housing Benefit: Changes to Local Housing Allowance Arrangements: Impact Assessment http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/lha-impact-nov10.pdf 10 ibid. 11 DWP 2011 Housing Benefit Equality Impact Assessment: Increasing the Shared Accommodation Rate age threshold to 35 http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-hb-shared-accommodation-age-threshold.pdf 12 New Policy Institute 2013 The impact of localising council tax benefit http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/council-tax-benefit-localisation-summary.pdf



decreased in real terms by around 3 to 4 per cent each year. On top of this, child benefit will not be uprated in line with inflation between 2013/14 and 2016/17, and will only increase by 1 per cent. If inflation remains at around 3 per cent, this means it will decrease in real terms by another 2 or so per cent per year. Secondly, changes to eligibility mean that families with one earner who earns over £60,000 per annum will have any child benefit payments made to their family deducted in their tax bill, and families with one earner making between £50,000 and £60,000 per annum will have the amount of payments gradually added to their tax bill. The impact of each of these reforms comes from impact assessment statements. 10. Changes to employment support allowance Employment and support allowance is a benefit for people who are unable to work because of illness or disability. Two key changes were introduced in April 2012. Firstly, access to contribution-based employment and support allowance is limited to one year, at which point claimants are moved on. The impact of this reform comes from impact assessment statements,13 and will see an average loss of £52 a week for affected claimants. Secondly, the special contribution conditions that allowed some young people to qualify for contribution-based employment and support allowance without paying National Insurance contributions was abolished for new claims from 1 May 2012. The impact of this reform comes from impact assessment statements14, and will see an average loss of £25 a week for affected claimants. 11. Changes to uprating Most benefits will be uprated by only 1 per cent in 2014/15 and 2015/16 rather than inflation. This means that over these years, the real value of benefits will decrease at around 2 per cent if inflation remains at around 3 per cent. Families will lose on average of £3 a week, and calculated by the impact assessment study.15 After 2015/16, benefits will only be increase in line with the Consumer Price Index, a lower measure of inflation, where they were previously uprated with Retail Price Index, meaning they continue to lose value over time. 12. Under-occupation penalty (the ‘bedroom tax’) In April 2013 a new size criteria was introduced for working-age housing benefit claimants living in social housing. The size criteria restricts housing benefit to one bedroom for each couple or lone adult living as part of a household, with the following exceptions: 13 DWP 2011Time limit Contributory Employment and Support Allowance to one year for those in the Work-Related Activity Group www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa-time-limit-wr2011-ia.pdf 14 ibid. 15 DWP 2103 Welfare Benefit Uprating Bill: Impact Assessment http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/welfare-benefits-up-rating-bill-ia.pdf


11

• children aged under 16 of same gender must share a bedroom; • children aged under 10 must share, regardless of gender; • disabled tenants who have a non-resident overnight carer can have an

extra bedroom. Anyone deemed to have at least one spare bedroom is affected, including the following:

• separated parents sharing the care of their children and who may have been allocated an extra bedroom to reflect this;

• parents whose children visit but are not part of the household; • foster carers, as foster children are not part of the household for benefit

purposes; • some families with disabled children; • disabled people including people living in adapted or specially designed

properties. The reduction is a fixed percentage of the eligible rent for housing benefit. Currently, this is 14 per cent for one extra bedroom and 25 per cent for two or more spare bedrooms. The government’s impact assessment estimates a loss on an average of £14 a week, although housing association tenants may lose £16 a week on average. The indicative losses per claimant come from Impact Assessment statements.16 13. The benefit cap From October 2013, the total weekly benefits that a household can receive is limited to £350 a week for single people or £500 a week for single parents and couples. This overall limit incorporates all payments of:

• bereavement benefits; • carer’s allowance; • child benefit; • child tax credit; • employment and support allowance (contribution-based and income-

related) except where the support component has been awarded; • guardian’s allowance; • housing benefit; • incapacity benefit; • income support; • jobseeker’s allowance (contribution-based and income-based); • maternity allowance; • severe disablement allowance; • widow’s pension.

If a claimant or their partner is entitled to working tax credit, they are exempt from the cap. This exemption also applies if someone in the household is on certain disability-related benefits such as disability living allowance, personal independence payment or war pensions. Initially the cap is applied by reducing housing benefit to the level set by the cap, although a 50p entitlement will always be maintained. Local authorities are 16 DWP 2012 Housing Benefit: Under Occupation of Social Housing Impact Assessment Statement http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/social-sector-housing-under-occupation-wr2011-ia.pdf



responsible for implementing this reduction. Once universal credit has been introduced, the cap will be applied through reduction of this payment for those on working age benefits. Some families who may have continued to receive over £500 from October, due to their benefits being worth over this amount even after HB has been reduced, may thus see a further reduction in their income when they are transferred onto universal credit. Official DWP guidance says that other benefit income should be used to make up any shortfalls in rent arising as a result of reductions in housing benefit.17 The indicative loss per claimant comes from Impact Assessment statements. 14. Changes to disability payments Disability living allowance (DLA) is a benefit intended to contribute towards the extra costs arising from disability or ill health. It is non-means-tested and payable regardless of employment status. From June 2013, the DLA is being replaced with personal independent payments (PIP) for new claims throughout the UK. There will be a face to face assessment for all DLA claimants as they are migrated on to PIP. It is expected that by 2015/16 500,000 fewer claimants will be in receipt of PIP than would have been if the DLA scheme had continued (see figure one). There are also different rates of payment under the PIP scheme than the DLA scheme. 2015/16 16-64 DLA rate combinations

Caseload ‘000s

2015/16 16-64 PIP rate combinations

Caseload ‘000s

Higher mobility, higher care 350 Enhanced mobility, enhanced daily living 340

Higher mobility, middle care 290 Enhanced mobility, standard daily living 190

Higher mobility, lowest care 270 Enhanced mobility, no daily living 230

Higher mobility, no care 130

Lower mobility, higher care 170 Standard mobility, enhanced daily living 110

Lower mobility, middle care 450 Standard mobility, standard daily living 250

Lower mobility, lowest care 230 Standard mobility, no daily living 190

Lower mobility, no care 50

No mobility, higher care 10 No mobility, enhanced daily living 90

No mobility, middle care 40 No mobility, standard daily living 250

No mobility, lowest care 190 Total 2,200 Total 1,700 Figure one: predicted PIP and DLA caseload18 The average loss per claimant has been calculated by multiplying out these expected caseloads with the predicted payment made for each type of claim, and averaging out the total difference in payouts between schemes.

17 DWP 2012 Benefit cap: Frequently Asked Questions for Local Authorities, www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/benefit-cap-la-faqs.pdf 18 DWP 2012 Disability Living Allowance Reform Impact Assessment Statement http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dla-reform-wr2011-ia.pdf


13

15. Universal credit Universal credit will replace working age means-tested benefits and tax credits from October 2013, be they in or out of work payments. It will gradually replace:

• income-based jobseeker’s allowance; • income-related employment and support allowance; • income support; • child tax credit; • working tax credit; • housing benefit.

It will be paid directly the claimants monthly, and is expected to be paid to one claimant in the household. Unlike other reforms, there is not expected to be a net reduction in benefit entitlement associated with this reform – and while there will be individual winners and losers – the average impact of the introduction will see households better off by £16 a week on average.19 Universal credit is being rolled out in four pilot boroughs from October 2013, and is expected to be rolled out across the UK by 2017.

19 DWP 2012 Universal Credit Impact Assessment Statement http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/universal-credit-wr2011-ia.pdf

Table one: A timeline of welfare reform

Reforms Implementation date

Client groups affected

Total cost to households

Indicative loss per affected claimant

1 Child trust funds: abolished May 2010 Young people £560m per year by 2014/15 £675 per family

2 Mortgage interest support: paid at Bank of England interest rates October 2010 Homeowners £65m per year by

2014/15 £11.30 a week

3 Education maintenance allowance: abolished (England) September 2011 Young people: 16-19

year olds in education £530m per year £27 a week

4 WTC and CTC: childcare cost support reduction in support from 80 per cent to 70 per cent April 2011 Working parents £405m per year

by 2014/15

5 WTC and CTC: withdrawal (taper rate) increase April 2011 Workers £780m per year by 2015/16

£175 per year for the lowest income decile £150 for the 2nd decile £200 for the 3rd decile £200 for the 4th decile £220 for the 5th decile

6 WTC and CTC: disregard for in year increases reduced to £5,000

April 2013, with reductions to £10,000 in 2011 and 2012 in preparation

Workers £605m per year by 2015/16

7 WTC and CTC: £2500 disregard for in year income falls income disregards reduction April 2012 Workers £700m per year

by 2016/17

8 WTC and CTC: new claims and changes of circumstance backdated only three months April 2012 Workers £360m per year

by 20156/17


15

9 CTC: family element withdrawn for famil ies on more than £40K,000 April 2012 Working parents £145m per year

by 2015/16

10 CTC: family element tapered immediately after chi ld element April 2012 Working parents £380m per year

by 2016/17

11 WTC: 30-hour element frozen April 2011 Workers ful l t ime £1.03b per year by 2014-15 12 WTC: basic element frozen April 2011 Workers

13 WTC: single parent and couple element frozen for one year April 2012 Working parents £280m m per

year by 2016/17

14 WTC: 50+ element abolished April 2012 Workers over 50 £40m per year by 2016/17

15 WTC: minimum hours for couple rise from 16 to 24 April 2012 Working couples £550m per year by 2016/17

16 CTC: baby element abolished April 2012 New parents with children under two

£180m per year by 2016/17 £545 per year

17 Sure Start maternity grant: restr icted to f irst chi ld only April 2011 New parents £75m per year by

2014/15 £500 per family

18 Health in Pregnancy grant: abolished April 2011 New parents £150m per year by 2014/15 £380 per family

19 Income support: may stop if youngest child is over f ive January 2012

Non-working mothers: youngest child five-seven years old

£350m per year by 2016/17

£0 (but extra conditionality)



20 Housing benefit : LHA cap

April 2011 for all new claimants. Existing claimants on the anniversary of their claim, with nine months of transitional protection

Renters: private sector £270m per year by 2014/15

£12 a week

21 Housing benefit : removal of f ive bedroom rate April 2011 Large famil ies: in private rental sector

£185m per year by 2015/16

22 Housing benefit : removal of £15 excess benefits could claim if their rent was below LHA April 2011 Renters: private sector £240m per year

by 2014/15

23 Housing benefit : LHA capped at 30th percenti le rather than median April 2011 Renters: private sector £505m per year

by 2015/16

24 Housing benefit : shared accommodation rate age increased from 25 to 35 January 2012 Young renters: 25 - 34

year olds £205m per year by 2015/16 £41 a week

25 Housing benefit : non-dependent deductions increase April 2011, and April 2012 and 2013 again

Renters £214m per year by 2015/16 £13.70 a week

26 Council tax benefit : non-dependent deductions increase April 2012 Renters Localised Localised

27 Contribution-based ESA: t ime l imited April 2012 Sick or disabled former workers

£1.2b per year by 2014/15 £52 a week

28 ESA in youth: abolished April 2012 Young people: with disabilities

£85m per year by 2014/15 £25 a week


17

29 Benefits indexed with CPI not RPI April 2011 Al l £10.6bn per year by 2014/15

(now uprated at 1%)

30 Child benefit : rates frozen for three years Apr 2011 Parents £1.3b per year by 2014/15 £2.96 a week

31 Child benefit : household with one income £60,000 and above are no longer el igible January 2013

Parents: in households with one earner earning over £60K

£2.5b per year by 2016/17

£1,300 per year (higher income earners only)

32 Child benefit : taper for households with an income over £50,000 January 2013

Parents: in households with one earner earning over £50K

33 Benefit cap: £500 a week for couple and lone parent households, £350 for single people

From April 2013 (phased roll out by local authority area)

Large famil ies, famil ies in high rent areas

£330m per year by 2016/17 £93 a week

34 Housing benefit : l inking LHA increases to CPI 2013/14 Renters: private sector £670m per year by 2016/17 £6 a week

35 Housing benefit : bedroom tax for under occupation of social housing April 2013 Renters: social sector

with spare rooms £490m from 2013/14 £14 a week

36 Council tax support: council tax benefit abolished and replaced by localised schemes, with a 10 per cent cut April 2013 All £480m per year

by 2016/17 £2.65 a week

37 Disabil i ty l iv ing allowance: replaced by personal independence payments for new claims June 2013-2016 People with

disabil i t ies £1.24b per year by 2015/16

£16.81 a week overall

38 Universal credit: gradual introduction and transfer October 2013 2017 All JSA/ESA/IS/WTC/CTC claimants

+£100m per year by 2013/14 +£16 a week



39 Uprating: means-tested benefits uprated by 1 per cent rather than CPI April 2013 All £2.5b per year by

2016/17

£3 a week 40 Child benefit : uprated by 1 per cent between 2013/14 and 2016/17 April 2013 Parents £330m per year

by 2016/17

41 LHA: increased by 1 per cent between 2013/14 and 2016/17 April 2013 Renters: private sector £260m per year

by 2016/17

42 Universal credit: increase earnings disregarded by 1 per cent rather than CPI for two years April 2013 Workers £1.2b per year by

2015/16 £3.20 a week

Case study one: the Jones Mrs Jones is a lone parent with three children who lives in North London. She has worked in the past but the high cost of childcare and rent made it difficult to make ends meet. She receives jobseeker’s allowance of £71.70 a week for herself and child benefit of £47.10 a week and child tax credit of £167 a week for her children. She is a private tenant in a three bedroom flat with a rent of £320 a week. Her child benefit has been frozen since April 2011 despite the cost of living rising sharply since then, especially her utility bills. She is in arrears with both gas and electric and has had to switch to a key meters. In November 2012, she was sanctioned under new rules that had come into force on 22 October. She refused to go on a course as she was worried about childcare and had her benefit cut by £28.40 a week for four weeks. In April 2013, she had to start paying £2.50 a week towards her council tax when council tax benefit was abolished and the local authority scheme meant she had to pay 8.5 per cent of her bill. She is worried about this as it adds up to £131 a year extra and she already has utility arrears and some other debts. In July 2013, the local authority informs her that from 1 September she is affected by the benefit cap and her housing benefit will be cut by £105.80 a week. Her total benefit income is £605.80 a week and her cap level, as a lone parent, is £500 a week. She has no way of making up the shortfall and is sure that her landlord will try and evict her. She has looked at alternative accommodation but has not seen anything within travelling distance of her children’s school with a rent below £300 a week. Mrs Jones is also worried about universal credit. She has heard that she will only get paid once a month rather than every two weeks, and does not see how she would make the money stretch. Case study two: the Khans20 Mr and Mrs Khan have two dependant children, both of whom have autistic spectrum disorders. Each child qualifies for disability living allowance at the middle rate for care and low rate for mobility. Mr Khan works 16 hours a week earning £122 per week. Mrs Khan is in receipt of carer’s allowance. They also receive child tax credit of £265 and working tax credit of £52.90 a week. They have an outstanding mortgage of £40,000 and council tax liability of £25 a week – however, due to the council tax rebate they only have to pay £6.65 a week. In April 2012 the tax credit rules change so that working tax credit can only be paid where a couple work 24 hours between them. Due to his caring responsibilities Mr Khan is unable to increase his working hours – consequently they lose tax credits of £52.90 a week. Their council tax is adjusted to take into account their reduced income and they start to receive full council tax benefit. In April 2013 their local authority introduces a new localised council tax reduction scheme and the family is asked to pay £10 a week towards their council tax.

20 Source: Contact a Family 2012 The Cumulative Effect – The impact of welfare reforms on families with disabled children now and for future generations to come http://www.cafamily.org.uk/media/533778/the_cumulative_effect_briefing.pdf This report also has many additional case studies of the cumulative impacts on families affected by disability.



At some point after April 2014, the Khans will be transferred from child tax credit onto universal credit. Initially, their income will not drop due to transitional protection. However, if and when the transitional protection is lost, the disability additions received for each child within universal credit will be reduced from £53.62 to £26.75 – i.e., a drop of £53.74 a week for the two children.


21

Part two: How local authorities are planning to manage these reforms During April and May 2013, CPAG hosted a number of roundtable discussions with local authority staff and partners exploring welfare reforms. During these discussions, a number of themes emerged:

• The importance of communicating changes to the welfare system to affected groups

• The need for responses to specific reforms • Managing problems that may arise in local authorities • Maximising family incomes • The role of partnership working, and specific partners.

Communicating changes to affected groups Many local authority and partner staff felt there was an urgent need to get in contact with families to offer support, information and guidance before affected households started accruing debts. Some interesting examples of active communication were provided, from a range of local authorities and partner organisations. For example:

• Some registered social landlords (RSL) and housing officers were being used to provide information about local services when people moved into an area.

• One local authority was running ‘Welfare Wednesdays’ to provide open access drop in sessions about welfare reforms.

• An RSL had decided against using the term ‘welfare’ as they felt it did not resonate with claimants and was instead running an information campaign about the ‘Big Benefits Shake Up’, and adopting a ‘beer, hair and prayer’ approach to communication, where they work with local pubs, hairdressers and churches to share information as widely as possible.

• Another RSL had adopted a peer-to-peer approach to sharing information, and had trained tenants’ champions to explain reforms to other tenants

Very specific suggestions, such as using white envelopes rather than brown envelopes, were discussed, as these have a higher chance of being opened. Partnering with schools to distribute information was another option some local authorities were adopting. It was felt that letters placed in children’s school bags have a higher chance of being opened than white envelopes. Beyond schools, grassroots organisations were also discussed as good partners to get messages out there. Establishing relationships with these organisations (especially foodbanks) was seen as a vital way of communicating with families who are experiencing financial hardship. There was much discussion around the need to communicate honestly with families. It was felt that there was nothing to gain by hiding the scale of changes, however, there was also some concern around scaring families. Sharing stories of affected families ‘up’ from grassroots organisations to local and central government was also discussed as a vital, but often overlooked, communication need. Sharing the stories about affected families from grass roots level can help decision makers understand the impacts of these reforms, and how to better manage them.



In establishing relationships with schools and grassroots organisations, local authorities should look to make these ‘two way’ to ensure vital information about the lived experience is received. Responses to specific policy challenges A number of specific reforms were expected to have a large impact within some of the areas we spoke to, including;

• underoccupation penalty (the' bedroom tax’) • council tax localisation • increasing conditionality • social fund localisation • extra demand on advice, information and guidance provisions • leveraging the trouble families agenda

However, there was some discussion around possible ways to manage and mitigate some of these, and ways to maximise the capacity some of these reforms offered to reduce poverty locally.

Underoccupation penalty (the ‘bedroom tax’) There were three key ways discussed to minimise the impact of the ‘bedroom tax’ on residents, namely; reclassifying properties that residents deemed to be under-occupying reside in; assisting these residents to move to smaller properties; or; subsidise the under-occupation penalty. In some areas, some authorities and RSLs have been able to reclassify homes in to ‘smaller’ properties, so that current residents are able to stay. For example, in Knowsley, the housing trust reclassified 566 properties into smaller homes, which, in part, helped some tenants avoid the under occupation penalty. Redesignating around 4 per cent of its total stock, from three and two bedrooms to two and one bedrooms respectively will cost the Knowlsey Housing Trust around £250,000 per annum. The trust has said the redesignation would have occurred even without welfare reforms however.21 Leeds Council has also redesignated 856 homes, including 341 five bedroom properties downsized to four bedroom, 398 three bedroom to two bedroom and 126 two bedroom to one bedroom homes.22 Many of these reclassifications were intended to take place regardless of the bedroom tax however. However, reclassifying bedrooms is not a sustainable solution for many local authorities or RSLs, as it decreases rent levels and therefore long term ability to borrow and develop. The government has also warned local authorities against reclassifying houses to avoid the bedroom tax, suggesting that local authorities found to be inappropriately re-designating properties may face a restriction on, or non payment of, their housing benefit subsidy. Alternatively, most housing providers were looking to downsize families as much as possible. However, the key problem with this approach was a lack of housing stock.

21 C. Brown, 2013 ‘Tenants avoid bedroom tax after Knowsley reclassifies homes’ http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/tenants-avoid-bedroom-tax-after-knowsley-reclassifies-homes/6525752.article 22 C. Brown, 2013 ‘Second landlord reclassifies homes’ http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/second-landlord-reclassifies-homes/6526441.article


23

There simply were not enough smaller properties in many local authorities to accommodate every affected household. To somewhat mitigate the lack of housing stock, a range of practices are being adopted to enable as much downsizing as possible. This often involved developing joined-up approached between local authorities and RSLs, to enable people to both find and move in to smaller stock as soon as it becomes available through any local provider. For example, in the West Midlands many RSLs have established a “best use of stock” group, which is designed to allow RSLs to ‘pool’ smaller housing stock. This group is also holding events for affected households such as housing swap days to enable and encourage households to move as much as possible. A third option was for local authorities to ‘cover’ the costs of the under-occupation penalty using their discretionary housing budget. This was widely seen as economically unaffordable, given the high pressures on the budget. However, some ‘exemptions’ were being made to specific target groups. For example, foster parents with two or more rooms were a common exemption target. However, it was general felt that there is not enough discretionary housing budget to allow every region to exempt everyone, so choices will need to be made.

Council tax localisation The localisation of the council tax scheme, alongside a reduction in funding, will again mean that local authorities will have to make some difficult decisions about who they subsidise going forward. In some areas, councils have been able to divert funds to continue exempting households from council tax. For example, in Solihull, the council is continuing its council tax exemptions for one more year. It secured the funding to achieve this by swapping the exemption from empty houses to fund a continuing exemption for low-income households. However, it is unclear how sustainable this is going forward and this may not be feasible for areas with few empty houses and many low-income families. Areas with high levels of poverty often have low council tax receipts, so extending exemptions in low-income areas would be difficult.

Increasing conditionality and sanctions Alongside the reductions to payment, the welfare reform programme is introducing more conditionality which brings with it a higher risk of sanctions. Sanctions are a particular concern for local authorities, as the social fund hardship scheme has been localised, and councils may have to meet the needs of households experiencing hardship as a result of benefit sanctions. However, there may be ways to minimise the risk of sanctions. For example, in Birmingham, attempts are being made to develop a joint-protocol with DWP and Jobcentre plus staff, so that before applying a sanction to a young person, that young person’s personal adviser would be contacted to see if any mitigating circumstances exist.



St Basils’ preventing sanctions procedure

Through representation at the Multi-Agency Welfare Committee, St Basils’ in Birmingham has been able to raise awareness of the issue of sanctions on young people. Following an initial meeting with the DWP, a procedure was established (below). Both organisations recognise that the young people St Basils work with are already marginalised and are anxious to ensure that we don’t exacerbate this. The procedure developed attempts to prevent sanctions being imposed. In brief, the procedures require a closer working relationship with St Basils support staff and DWP staff; we notify them of all young people who are making a claim and living within our service and any special circumstances around each case which may contribute to non compliance with normal JSA routines. We attend the initial appointment with the young person to ensure that both the appointment is attended and the correct information provided. If someone has never made a claim previously, the whole procedure can be seen as longwinded and bureaucratic, young people have been known to simply give up, which then has a detrimental effect on their ability to maintain their accommodation, leading back to homelessness. The goal of the attendance of staff being that before a sanction is imposed St Basils can be notified of the issue arising and assist the young person to rectify the problem thereby making them compliant with their claim requirements. Currently operating as a three-month pilot, St Basils and the DWP hope to gather enough intelligence to roll out the procedure across the sector as a whole. Certainly early indications are that this can be an effective productive method of working.

Preventing sanctions procedures

1. Staff should inform young people to make DWP aware that they reside in hostel accommodation.

2. DWP must be informed of EVERY change of circumstance relating to the claimant. 3. All young people will have a named adviser at each Jobcentre so that they can start

developing relationships and be aware of the young person’s journey. 4. Staff to complete a DPA1 for submission to DWP, this will ‘flag’ the young person on

their system as vulnerable and gives permission to discuss cases with. The DPA1, document must be printed off, completed, signed and dated by the claimant. Claimant or designated support worker with data sharing consent should then submit to the Jobcentre for the claimant’s file. The DPA1 should declare the claimant’s: offender status; refugee status; substance/alcohol misuse/recovery/treatment; health problems that affects day to day life; any other significant barrier to employment.

5. Ideally a support worker should attend the first appointment where possible, this will be an appointment with their personal adviser who will conduct the diagnostic interview, this will take one to two hours.

6. Support worker to write a support letter in respect of every young person that makes a claim. This should include:

a. A general overview of the support plan. The support plan letter should indicate any restrictions on the claimants’ availability, engagement in self-improvement courses etc, realistic job and training prospects.

b. If they have any set times or appointments which prevent them from working during particular hours – eg,YOS/probation, medical appointments. As long as they are available to work 35 hours a week.

c. This can be evenings, weekends or nights. A completed confidentiality waiver to be completed for each claimant. This should be signed by the young person naming the individuals and their contact details whom the claimant is consenting the DWP to share information with. Must be dated and signed by customer, copy kept by support agency, original to DWP adviser for file.

d. A new letter should be done if they move Jobcentre, home or have a change of circumstances. With thanks to Jean Templeton, St Basils


25

The social fund The localisation of the social fund replacement scheme may present some options to support families affected by the welfare reform programme. Specifically, the ability to develop a ‘reactive’ scheme that provides additional support has been discussed as a key capacity. A number of local authorities have been working with their local credit unions to deliver their replacement scheme, as this in part means that recipients will, by definition, have to have made contact with their local credit unions which potentially offers access to the facilities needed to save to avoid future financial crises. For example, Tameside council delivers its social fund through a local credit union. Alternatively, some local authorities have partnered with voluntary sector organisations, for either delivery or to pool locally available grants. For example, Southwark Council is delivering its social fund replacement scheme through the use of voluntary sector partners and Islington Council has partnered with a local grant giving charity to pool the resources available for its replacement scheme. Southwark’s social fund replacement scheme23

23 Southwark Council 2013 ‘Local Welfare Provision - Southwark Emergency Support Scheme’ (online) http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s36315/Report%20Local%20Welfare%20Provision%20-%20Southwark%20Emergency%20Support%20Scheme.pdf

‘The voluntary sector will play a key role in the delivery of the scheme and we are grateful to Community Action Southwark and a number of voluntary sector organisations for their support in its genesis. Pecan, London Re-Use, the British Heart Foundation, the Family Fund, St Giles Trust and the London Mutual Credit Union will all be involved in the delivery of the scheme. Our aim over time is to devolve the administration of the scheme further to the voluntary sector.1’ Requirement Provision Supplier Food Food parcels Pecan (Peckham High St)

Foodbank charitable organisation currently in expansion to three other sites with volunteer assistance

White goods – fridge, freezers etc

Furniture – starter packs Reconditioned white goods and furniture

London Re-use network (based in Islington looking for further development opportunities) British Heart Foundation Family Fund

Rent advance for those leaving care or prison

Up front payment and accommodation support for those leaving care and ex-offenders

St Giles Trust London Mutual Credit Union

Grants for replacement household items/reconnection charges for services/living expenses/clothing

Cash payment London Mutual Credit Union



Islington’s social fund replacement scheme24

24 Islington Council 2013 ‘Resident Support Scheme for the London Borough of Islington’ (online) http://www.cripplegate.org/wp-content/uploads/Resident-Support-Scheme-Final-28-Jan-13.pdf

The Council will work in partnership with Cripplegate Foundation to integrate their grant making resources and experience into the scheme. The Resident Support Scheme will bring together a number of different funding streams to try to ensure effective targeting of spend, reduce duplication of support and ensure that the appropriate funds are used. This will include elements of the Department for Work and Pensions’ Social Fund which are being devolved to local authorities in April 2013 The Resident Support Scheme will target those at risk rather than those simply in need. It will have universal eligibility criteria that will determine whether a resident qualifies for support. The Resident Support Scheme will not replicate the existing Crisis Loan provision and will not provide loans. Crisis support will be provided in certain circumstances only to vulnerable or at risk residents who do not have sufficient funds to pay for fuel or food costs. In order to respond to the expected high demand for support there will be referral-only access into the Resident Support Scheme. However, there will be a number of access points, including through the council’s Statutory Services, through ‘Trusted Partners’ and through identified referral agencies including other council services. The council’s statutory services - Housing, Adult Social Services and Children’s Services and some key partner organisations such as Housing Associations will be able to recommend Islington residents for financial support from the Residents Support Scheme if they identify a need through their existing assessment processes. Each of the statutory services and partner organisations will be allocated a notional budget which they will manage and make recommendations of spend on behalf of service users. The Council will also enable designated local referral organisations, such as the Citizens Advice Bureau to make applications on behalf of a resident. These organisations will not have notional budgets in order to prevent conflicts of interests with their role as advocates for individuals who ask for their assistance. The Resident Support Scheme will be administered by a team based in the Council’s Financial Operations service. The team will verify and process recommendations and referrals, and make award decisions. The Resident Support Scheme will use a number of payment methods including a payment card, payment direct to suppliers, payment direct to landlords/housing associations, reducing council tax liability, grocery vouchers and fuel payments. The Resident Support Scheme will offer residents additional support that will attempt to improve their long-term circumstances and help build their financial resilience. There is an opportunity to link them to financial capability advice, the credit union, advice agencies, employment services, the Income Maximisation Team and other support services.


27

Leveraging the troubled families agenda There was some discussion about the possibility of leveraging the troubled families agenda, and its associated funding streams, to reduce family poverty. Specifically, there was strong interest in attempting to leverage the performance by result payments model to move families who will be affected by welfare reforms, and especially the overall benefits cap, into work. It was generally felt that it would be critical to focus intensive support around those who are most affected by the reforms, in order to leverage the trouble families agenda.

Extra pressure on advice, information and guidance services With a broad range of welfare reforms being introduced in quick succession, and family incomes broadly expected to suffer over the coming years, many local authorities were troubled by reductions to funding for services that stop people slipping further in to crisis, especially reductions in the amount of advice, information and guidance available to residents. Protecting funding for advice, information and guidance (AIG) services was described in many areas as essential to ensuring that families were able to navigate and survive the programme of welfare reforms. Without the provision of extra funding, one way of improving the capacity of local AIG services that was discussed was the possibly by creating local welfare rights consortiums, including advisers from the full range of AIG services in the region. Recruiting voluntary sector partners, who may have volunteers, could potentially increase capacity, and allow common issues to be identified and ‘fed up’ to local authority staff. Alternatively, the provision of AIG training to non-expert staff partner organisations may relieve some of the pressure on existing providers. Training for school staff, children’s centre staff and within GPs clinics was described as one way to ensure some welfare rights knowledge existed outside of over subscribed AIG sessions.25 With the introduction of universal credit, there is an added impetus to make sure that there is adequate AIG available to people now. Running take-up campaigns and ensuring that people are currently on the right benefits will ensure that they continue to be so in to the future. Transitional protection may mean that some residents will continue to enjoy higher levels of payment when they move on to universal credit until their circumstances change (see the case study on page 36). Managing problems that may arise in local authorities A number of common problems were expected to manifest as a net result of the welfare reform programme that local authorities would have to manage. These include:

• food poverty; • digital exclusion; • transport exclusions; • lack of data.

25 CPAG can offer Benefits For Non benefits Advisors courses, available at http://cpag.org.uk/training/browse?level=351



Food poverty

There was a general perception that recent increases in financial stress would lead to food poverty in most local authority areas. Two key mechanisms to address this were discussed: food banks and the direct provision of meals. Firstly, the role of well-supported and adequate food banks appeared crucial. Many local authorities were in the process of mapping their food bank provisions, to both identify gaps and ensure they can develop correct signposting techniques for families in distress. Partnering with grass roots organisations to ensure an adequate food bank network was considered crucial. On top of this, one project discussed was attempting to turn food banks in to holistic ‘hubs’ capable of delivering additional support, by working with other voluntary sector organisations to see if food bank services could be co-located with information, advice and guidance specialists, for example. Secondly, there was much discussion about the additional need to ensure healthy meal provision for families, beyond emergency food parcels. Working in partnership to establish lunch and breakfast clubs appeared to be popular approaches. Some lunch clubs were being established in work clubs, to both ensure that job seekers can access healthy meals, and encourage them to use work club services. Working with schools to deliver free breakfasts and free lunches also appeared to be a popular approach to tackling food poverty for children. Some local authorities in London, including Newham, Southwark, Islington and Tower Hamlets, have worked to extend free school meal provision, to tackle food poverty. Currently, entitlement to free school meals is largely only available to children whose parents are out of work, so that ‘working poor’ families miss out. These local authorities have implemented some degree of universal free school meals to ensure that ‘working poor’ families do not miss out. While this clearly has budget implications, many local authorities have been able to meet this, and this approach has many pay-offs.

• When universal free school meals were piloted in Newham, there was a significant positive impact on attainment for primary school pupils at key stages 1 (age7) and 2 (age 11). Pupils in the pilot areas making between four and eight weeks more progress over two years than similar pupils in comparison area.26

• Meeting the cost of free school meals would reduce poverty among working parents.

• Universal free school meals reduce the stigma of claiming that still exists for many children, and ensure that all parents have an interest in ensuring that free school meals provide a healthy nutritious lunch.

Beyond extending free school meal provision, many schools themselves have been working on tackling food poverty through breakfast clubs and after school snacks, such as the Beech Hill Primary School. Beech Hill Primary School and food poverty

26 V. Brown, C. Crawford, L. Dearden, E. Greaves, S. Kitchen, C. Payne, S. Purdon and E. Tanner Evaluation of the Free School Meals Pilot: Impact Report 2012 IFS, http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6279

Beech Hill Primary is an outstanding school in West Denton, formerly Linhope First School. In the first year of having year 6 as a primary, the results put the school in the bottom 3 per cent of the country. Following a complete change of leadership, a focus on teaching and learning and a zero tolerance attitude to behaviour, the SAT results


29

put Beech Hill in the top 10 per cent of schools in the country. In September 2008, following an inspection by OFSTED, Beech Hill was given an outstanding rating. This reflected the excellent teaching and learning, the strong leadership and the rapid progress made by all pupils. Our relentless focus on supporting children to become independent life long learners and ensuring they are adequately nourished and cared for has resulted in the results remaining well above national averages at the end of key stage 2. We currently have 369 children on roll, around 50 per cent of whom are eligible for free school meals. The school offers three types of ‘extra’ food provision to tackle hunger: breakfast clubs, seconds at lunch and snack provided at after school clubs/booster classes. Breakfast clubs: Numbers at breakfast club vary on a daily basis but increased dramatically when it became funded and breakfast was free of charge. Prior to Greggs’ involvement we did run a breakfast club which charged a nominal fee which was attended by around 20 children. This increased to around 70 and fluctuates around this figure. Our strong belief in the need for children to feel safe and experience warmth and nourishment in order to grow and be able to learn is a driver behind our philosophies. Some of our pupils may arrive at school late without having breakfast, latecomers will be asked if they have had breakfast and will be offered fruit or breakfast bars if necessary. The staff (and sometimes parents) who run breakfast club are volunteers who use a designated area and their own equipment (provided by Greggs) to prepare food so there is no cost to the school in terms of offering this provision. Offering seconds at lunch: We are very aware that for some of our children, their school dinner may be the only nutritionally balanced meal they have during the day. Seconds are offered to children at lunchtime; on average around 30 per cent will take this up. Because this food would otherwise be disposed of, this policy has no impact on the school budget and decreases wastage. There is no evidence to suggest that it is predominantly free school meals children who ask for seconds. Having spoken to some year 6 children who stay for school dinners, they are clear that being offered seconds is a good thing: ‘it is a good decision to give children seconds instead of letting it go to waste’ Providing food in after school classes/clubs: Booster lessons take place across school focusing on those children who are making less than expected progress and therefore the number fluctuates. Teachers offer juice and biscuits/cakes etc mid session to avoid the sugar dip, this provision is funded through school fund using money generated by Beech Hill hosting University teaching students throughout the year. Kangaroo club is paid for out of pupil premium as an after school club which develops social skills as well as offering children extra support with their learning. Part of the session between 3.15 and 5 o’clock includes quiet time for children 1-1 reading with an adult or older child who has been trained to hear readers; completing homework with support where necessary; phonics and times tables practice as well as tasks provided by the class teacher to consolidate prior learning. Toast and juice are provided by school as well as biscuits and sometimes cake which is often brought in by parents when a request is sent out; this illustrates the value put on the club by parents. Staff from the club report that however much toast they provide at the beginning of the session – children invariably ask for more. While pupil premium now funds booster, reading interventions and 1-1 tuition, the school has historically used the school budget to provide this form of personalised learning as we know that it allows children to make better than expected progress which is reflected in our outstanding results. The school is situated in an area of high deprivation. In 2011, Beech Hill was one of the first primary schools in the country to gain the Enterprise and Business Award from Warwick University. This emphasis on enterprise continues in school with skills linked to business such as communication, collaboration and problem solving being part of every lesson. With thanks to Jess Eatock, Beech Hill Primary.



Digital exclusion With the roll out of universal credit being digital by default, a number of local authorities were concerned about computer and internet access. Applying for universal credit, and in some cases the social fund, will require a relatively long, undisturbed session on the internet, and many authorities are looking at how to best provide this. In Birmingham, one service provider was attempting to map all the digital feeds across Birmingham, to ensure there was an adequate map of free Wi-Fi and computer services. In the Merseyside region, one local authority has worked with its library provision to ensure that library services can adequately allow people to apply for universal credit. This included altering time limits (there was a 30 minute cap that would have otherwise prevented people completing universal credit claims) as well as moving screens to help ensure privacy while people enter personal details. Some basic training around the universal credit application process for librarians might also prove helpful. Aside from these ‘work arounds’, local authorities were keen to stress the need to ensure that some face to face support is available, as not everyone will be able to manage with a digital only service.

Transport exclusion The role of transport in shaping the experience of poverty for many families is also crucial, and can have knock on consequences for parental employment opportunities and children’s school outcomes. It is also an area that local authorities can have some influence over. For example, in Liverpool, the regional child poverty commission has been working closely with the local transport providers to address transport poverty. Merseyside travel and the Liverpool City Region Child Poverty and Life Chances Commission

The Liverpool City Region Child Poverty Commission recognises the contribution transport can make to reducing child poverty and has set out four key actions for transport in the Liverpool City Region Child Poverty and Life Chances Strategy 2011-2014:

• To pilot a cycle hire scheme within the city region. • To provide travel advice for those seeking work. • To deliver a sustainable transport scheme to ensure good access to

employment and education. • To share best practice on improving road safety across the city region.

Set out below are a number of case studies demonstrating how through transport is supporting the delivery of the Liverpool City Region Child Poverty and Life Chances Strategy. Travel advice for those seeking work – travel train ing This free solution is for people who need extra help and support to use public transport independently, offering one to one travel support, teaching the skills, knowledge and


31

confidence that are needed to travel independently. Travel training is available for anybody staring new employment, or needing the confidence to travel to interviews and training, and will teach the skills and knowledge required to plan and carry out a journey. For example, the Wirral Travel Trainers received a referral for Mr M in December 2013 from an organisation called Working Life. The Working Life team support people with disabilities into paid or unpaid employment and volunteering, including access to training and developing employable skills. The trainers assessed Mr. M’s specific needs and established the easiest public transport route to take, along with a detailed step by step guide booklet. After 15 travel training sessions Mr. M felt confident enough to do the journey alone. Following completion of the training, Mr. M successfully gained part-time paid employment and stated that without the travel training he would not have been able to secure paid employment. Mersyside Transport Solut ions Team Merseytravel’s Transport Solutions local sustainable transport fund programme provides support to unemployed people gaining employment, supporting economic regeneration. This programme provided bespoke one to one innovative transport solutions for jobseekers. An example of the bespoke support was support for a jobcentre Plus Sector Based Work Academy in Autumn 2012. The Academy leads to guaranteed interviews for jobseekers for employment in the car manufacturing sector. The Transport Solutions team attended the Academy twice a week for five weeks providing journey plans and travel cards to enable unemployed people to attend the training. The site for employment was originally in Kirkby (in the North East of Merseyside) but on completion of training, around 290 individuals were told that the jobs would be in Ellesmere Port (North Cheshire). The team provided information from taxi firms, different routes for public transport, developed a car-sharing scheme all with associated costs. 190 individuals where successful and have stayed in employment and carry on using public transport or car sharing to get there and back. This example was showcased across the country and after only 13 days in his new job Neil Cooling, Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus visited Merseytravel to discuss the support we provided. Each and every client that receives support from the team is encouraged to use public transport. Merseytravel’s Apprenticeship Bike Scheme Merseytravel are committed to supporting individuals to access employment and skills and have delivered a free bike scheme as part of the local sustainable transport fund) programme for NEETs (young people not in education, employment or training) who are accessing apprenticeship schemes. The Smarter Choices team carried out a pilot in 2012/13 to enable 100 NEETs to travel to apprenticeship schemes. The scheme was developed following feedback from young people and apprenticeship providers that the cost of transport is a barrier to accessing employment and training. The scheme provides access to a healthy affordable travel option, increase physical activity amongst participants and encourages cycling for work, utility and social purposes, while enabling participants to be economically active. The programme has been delivered in conjunction with organisations or training providers who deliver apprenticeship schemes. 100 bikes and equipment such as a high visibility jackets, lights and cycle helmets have been given to NEET’s accessing apprenticeship schemes through St Helen’s Chamber of Commerce, Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, Merseyside Youth Association, Liverpool Community College and UK Railway Ltd. Cycle training and maintenance sessions have been delivered to the NEETs to give them the road skills to cycle safely and the skills to maintain their bikes to ensure they are roadworthy. Although 100 bikes have been given out, some apprenticeship schemes manage the



Lack of data

Many authorities mentioned a lack of information and data as potentially hampering their ability to tackle poverty in their area. Data was often described as difficult to gather, or having a considerable time-lag which, given the fast pace of the reform programme, made responding difficult. In response to a lack of information about services, mapping projects were often proposed as one solution to both identify services and service gaps, as described on page 39. In response to a lack of data about needs, food banks and grass roots organisations were described as potential sources of on-the-ground data (see also case study on page 41).

Although 100 bikes have been given out, some apprenticeship schemes manage the bikes to enable them to be passed from one cohort to another. This provides even greater value for money as more apprentices can benefit from the scheme. The Bike scheme has been a great success. The lads use them and are looking after them’ Dee McDermott, UK Railway Training ‘The students are thrilled’, Mike Flannery, Everton Free School Green Streets – case study: Sutton Manor Four Acre and Sutton Manor were once the locations of several collieries which closed over the last 20 years. The semi-rural areas remain largely the subject of social and economic deprivation. Recent green space improvements have been made, but the areas still lacked street trees. 171 trees have since been planted and as a result the area has become more pleasant for walking and cycling and new leisure and recreation opportunities have been created through improved green space. Improving the local environment has also encouraged more visitors to the area and inward investment in new tenure housing stock by developers and social housing providers. Other economic benefits have been secured, including a raised profile and improved investment for the local Lea Green Industrial Park. Sutton Manor is set to benefit from further street tree planting, which will create more attractive travel routes between areas of high unemployment and places of education, training and work. The greening of the routes will complement a raft of other local projects within the wider local sustainable transport fund programme, such as cycle hire schemes and improved bus services. The project also aims to boost the number of people using sustainable modes of travel including walking, cycling and taking the bus, providing a greener route to work. With thanks to John Smith, Merseyside Travel.


33

Stockport’s use of foodbank data

Maximising family incomes Beyond managing problems, local authorities discussed a range of pro-active ways they are working to increase family incomes, including:

• increasing financial inclusion and financial literacy; • tackling fuel poverty; • introducing a living wage; • benefits take-up and maximising transitional protection.

Financial inclusion and financial literacy Both financial inclusion and financial literacy were discussed as potential issues for decreasing child poverty levels locally. Access to basic bank accounts was a real problem for many low-income families. Mainstream banks were often seen as reluctant to service these communities, and accessible post office card accounts have many limitations, such as not allowing direct debit payments to be made. Getting families onto direct debit payments for bills was regarded as essential in reducing the poverty premium. On top of this, the move to monthly universal credit payments is expected to make access to banking facilities essential. Access to credit union accounts was therefore regarded as a critical part of any attempt to reduce family poverty locally. However, many credit unions were keen to stress that they did not have the capacity to be the magic bullet for the problem of financial exclusion. Many credit unions suggested that they needed to enhance and develop their business models to ensure their viability and ability to assist affected families. One of the key ways discussed was to secure investment from corporate partners to ensure they can provide the necessary services. Local authorities may be able to assist in encouraging this investment. Another was to work with local authorities and RSLs to see if the costs of ‘jam jar’ accounts can be spread across partners.

In Stockport at the Child Poverty Strategy Group we look at a quarterly report from the Stockport Foodbank. This has enabled us over the last 12 months since its inception to look at the volumes of families who have received food and most importantly the reasons why. Foodbanks that have been set up under the Trussell Trust can give easily the following information:

• who has made the referral; • which wards of the borough the people live in; • reason for need, this includes data on benefit delays, low income, debt and

refusal of crisis loans; • age range; • family size, this includes singles, families, single parents and couple data.

By regularly assessing these, we have seen the increase in numbers quarter on quarter. It also gives us some examples and case studies of the people that my advice staff refer. With thanks to Sue Baker, Stockport Council



Outside of access to banking facilities, financial literacy was also described as a potential issue, especially as universal credit will usually be paid monthly. To address this:

• some RSLs were looking to recruit money managers on staff to ensure their tenants had access to any budgeting advice needed;

• some youth services were also being targeted as ways of supporting young people to learn about budgeting and encouraging saving;

• some credit unions also have a track record of providing budgeting advice, and were seen as good potential partners in delivering financial literacy training.

However, it was often stressed that some of the best budgeters are low-income families, because they know where every penny needs to go. There was not meant to be an implicit trade off between providing budgeting support for families and addressing issues of simply not having enough money to make ends meet. Beyond access to banking facilities and financial literacy, many partners we spoke to were concerned that local authorities were selling debt on to debt collection agencies, which meant bailiffs were making collections. Many voluntary sector and credit union partners were keen to encourage local authorities not to regard loans made to residents as a priority debt.

Fuel poverty

Tackling fuel poverty was discussed as one way to maximise available family incomes. A number of options were discussed, including improving insulation and decreasing fuel costs. Firstly, for insulation, the possibility of running take up campaigns for the Affordable Warmth Scheme and its successors was discussed. No local authority that we have spoken to had attempted this yet, but it was discussed as a possibility. Alternatively, for local authorities with areas of high deprivation within them, working with the six large energy providers obliged to implement the Carbon Saving Communities Obligation might assist with supporting insulation programmes. Again, we did not come across any local authorities that had tried this approach, but there may be potential for local authorities to assist with home insulation. Secondly, however, there were many local authorities that had worked to attempt to reduce fuel costs in their area, through bulk buying power and selling it on more cheaply to residents. Schemes are now in place in a number of areas, including Peterborough, where they are operating a switching scheme. Peterborough’s switching scheme27

27 Peterborough Council 2013 ‘Ready to Switch? You Could Save Money on Your Energy Bills’ (online) http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/council_and_democracy/ready_to_switch _and_save.aspx

Peterborough City Council has launched the Ready to Switch scheme to save people money on their energy bills. The idea is called collective switching and uses the combined buying power of residents across our community to negotiate cheaper prices directly with energy companies.


35

The living wage The living wage was discussed by a range of local authorities as one way to improve the incomes of working families. Many authorities have already become living wage employers, but some are also looking at writing it through their procurement procedures, and believed that the Social Value Act 2013 – which places an obligation on public bodies to consider the social value inherent in any procurement – provides them with incredible leverage to do so. One local authority we spoke to indicated that it was going ‘one step’ beyond this however, and on top of implementing a living wage, has embedded a commitment to positive working conditions and local apprenticeships in its mayoral charter.

Benefit take-up campaigns, to ensure transitional protection under universal credit

The introduction of universal credit will produce many financial ‘winners’, but will also produce financial ‘losers’ who stand to lose money with the introduction of the scheme. To offset these losses, existing benefits claimants are being offered transitional protection, so that they will not lose out on payments so long as their circumstances do not change. When their circumstances change, they may be

Rather than switching provider and reducing your energy bill as an individual, people register to switch and save as a big group all at the same time. Those that tend to make the biggest savings are those households that rarely switch or have never switched. If (they) do switch – (they) can still see if you can get a better deal or check you’re on a competitive rate. At the end of each round an auction will be held with energy providers to find out which one will bid the best price to supply energy to all those households that have registered. Then you will be sent a personal offer – and it’s up to (them) if (they) accept or not. Savings so far Round One

• Average savings across the scheme – annual saving £122 per household • Monthly dual direct debit customers had the biggest average saving of £149 • Over 300 Peterborough households switched and saved • Savings of up to £400 a year were reported • Winning energy companies were OVO Energy, Co-operative and Scottish Power

Round Two

• Average savings across the scheme – annual saving £126 per household • Monthly dual direct debit had the biggest average saving of £163 • 1,000 city households registered to save • Winning energy companies were British Gas, Sainsbury’s Energy and Scottish

Power • 66 per cent of those registered would make a saving if they switch

More information can be found at www.readytoswitchpeterborough.co.uk



reassessed within the universal credit scheme, and may either ‘win’ or ‘lose’ compared to the current scheme. Because of this, maximising transitional protection is one way to ensure that families continue to receive payments extending forward, so long as they have claimed the correct benefits now. Running benefits take-up campaigns now, before the roll out of universal credit, is therefore a potential way to protect family incomes in the short and medium terms. A number of ‘check before it changes’ type schemes are being undertaken now, to ensure that families are on the right benefits, so they can enjoy transitional protection. Blackpool Advice Link’s check before It changes campaign

Check before it changes campaign In Blackpool, Advice Link is promoting a C£eck before it C£anges! ! Campaign funded by the primary care trust. Advice Link has produced a desk aid to highlight the implications and sources of information and support on the numerous welfare reform changes are taking place in 2013 As part of the campaign: • Advice Link held a C£eck before it C£anges!! Event on 14 January. More than

130 members of the public attended and over £61,000 of potential cash gains for them were identified. There were 16 organisations represented which included the council, the public and the voluntary sectors. Among the advice and information provided were information on welfare reform, energy switching savings and social landlord and private rented changes.

• A leaflet,: Taking control of your money, with an integral budgeting sheet

has been produced and is available for Advice Link Network partners from Advice Link and at council receptions.

• A C£eck before it C£anges!! article will appear in the free local newspaper.

• The funding is also providing extra outreach staff to support claimants before and

through the changes. • A regular Welfare Reform Briefing is being produced and circulated to frontline

staff by Advice Link. • Training and briefings on the welfare reform key issues are available from Advice

Link. Visit the C£eck before it C£anges! ! page on the Advice Link website, www.advicelink.org.uk With thanks to Pam Cochrane, Blackpool Advice Link.


37

Coordinated working and potential partners Authorities need to coordinate responses, to prevent duplication and to ensure partners can both manage issues and maximise the potential solutions welfare reforms may present. The sort of coordinated responses that were talked about often requires establishing some sort of multi-agency welfare reform or poverty group. These multi-agency groups need to be cross-partner and cross-departmental. Some potential partners, and their potential contributions, were noted in the section around new partnerships. To work cohesively however, may require tackling some initial inertia and producing a cultural shift, so that different partners and different departments work together rather than competitively. Multi-agency working was described as imperative, but requiring leadership and coordination. The benefits of a coordinated approach include the following.

• Often being able to make small, practical differences. For example, parents do not qualify for child benefit until the birth of their child is registered, so in Birmingham there has been a concerted focus on decreasing birth registration times to ensure payments commence as soon as possible.

• Ensuring that up to date, accurate information is shared quickly, which gives local authorities and partners a more holistic view of the picture on the ground.

• Allow service gaps to be identified. Partnership working in Birmingham

From the outset, it was clear that welfare reform would have a serious impact upon thousands of Birmingham people. In a city already grappling with long-term issues around deprivation, poverty and unemployment, welfare reform is another heavy burden placed upon some of the hardest pressed neighbourhoods. As part of our Birmingham Social Inclusion Process, Giving Hope Changing Lives, a welfare reform seminar was held in July 2012 to discuss the potential impact of the Welfare Reform Act and the steps we could take locally to support the city’s most vulnerable people. It was clear that we needed to build a strong partnership of public sector agencies, voluntary organisations, and community groups in order to coordinate activities and services across Birmingham. So we created a Multi-Agency Committee on Welfare Reform, chaired by myself as the Council’s Cabinet Member for Social Cohesion and bringing together the key players on a monthly basis to review actions and progress. The Committee has a diverse membership. Sat around the table are key players from the public sector – City Council officers, Birmingham Social Housing Partnership, Community Safety Partnership and the Department of Work and Pensions. Alongside them, we have local voluntary organisations: Citizens Advice Bureau, SIFA Fireside, Gateway Family Services CIC, Birmingham Disability Resource Centre, St Basil’s, Birmingham and Solihull Women’s Aid, Freshwinds, Birmingham Settlement, Birmingham Law Centre, Refugee Action, Trussell Trust Network of Foodbanks and CASA. The Committee’s work is focused on three areas. Firstly, the short-term actions to help people deal with the immediate impact of welfare changes. Second, we are looking at the way in which we need to reshape services to meet demands created by welfare reform in the longer term. Finally, we are developing policies to address the longer-term issues arising in communities from the impact of the changes



Identifying partners and departments to bring together can be difficult, but mapping available services can help to both bring partners together, but also create clear and transparent signposting networks. Coherent signposting networks that highlighted best options for their needs were discussed. It was generally felt that a coherent signposting network needed to include:

• directories of locally available support including crisis support, such as social fund replacement schemes and foodbanks;

• bankruptcy advice; • debt advice services.

We are driving this work forward through eight work streams, each of which are led by one of the partner agencies: Communications and mult i-agency advice/training: Developing a communications and training strategy to ensure that claimants, service providers, staff and elected members are informed of the impact of welfare reforms and know where to go for help and advice. The impact of welfare reform on individuals: Modelling data to identify who will be affected by the welfare reforms and the scale of the impact on individuals, neighbourhoods and communities. Case studies: Developing scenarios around what the benefit changes will mean for particular individuals and groups, so we can better understand the practical impact of the changes and the actions we need to take to support those affected. F inancial inclusion: Developing and putting in place a plan of action to address the serious challenges around affordable credit, financial education and loansharking. Digital inclusion: Looking at practical solutions to provide people with digital access. As part of one of 12 national universal credit pilots, Birmingham is developing ‘digital logbooks’ for residents which will be a personal account for individuals containing references to support services. Discretionary social fund: The Committee helped to shape the city’s Local Welfare Provision scheme, ensuring that the support we provide to people in crisis reflects real experience at the front line. Employment: Delivering effective cooperation between the key agencies around welfare reform and job creation and developing the kind of support that can be provided to low paid workers to allow them to remain in work. Coordination of cr isis support: Ensuring that our crisis support services are coordinated across the city. We’ve mapped different types of crisis support across the city (clothing, emergency accommodation, financial advice, financial support, food, housing advice, legal advice) to enable more effective signposting and a coordinated approach to sharing and allocating resources. The strength of the multi-agency approach in Birmingham is the quality of its partnership working and its ‘can-do’ problem-solving approach. Over the last few months, the Committee has coordinated a successful funding bid to secure extra resources for the city’s advice agencies. Our multi-agency approach has also resulted in the city council reviewing its arrangements for registering births to avoid delays in vulnerable people claiming child benefit and DWP and St Basils working together to look at how young people in hostel accommodation can be supported to reduce their vulnerability to DWP sanction arrangements. Evidence from the group is also being used to inform conversations with government about the impact of welfare reform. These are challenging times for people in Birmingham. These reforms do not make our work to tackle poverty and deprivation any easier. But through strong partnership working, we will do all we can to help and support those who are bearing the brunt of these change. With thanks to Cllr John Cotton, Birmingham


39

Supporting vulnerable residents in Tameside through mapping

A range of authorities suggested that welfare reforms may sit across a range of areas, and there was a need to look at all of the structures that might be interested in these reforms, including:

• multi agency task forces; • commissioning groups; • fairness commissions.

Tameside is very aware of the welfare reform agenda and the impact that will be felt by our residents. We are keen to support vulnerable residents as effectively as possible and our Supportive Communities Partnership has agreed that developing personal financial resilience should be a key objective for the next 12 months. This Partnership includes elected members, council services, social landlords, Greater Manchester Police, Age Concern, Jobcentre Plus, representatives from the voluntary sector, faith groups, BME groups, health and social care, youth participation and children’s services. Task groups have been established to take this work forward, one working on mapping where foodbanks are around the Borough and the other on information, training and communication. This second task group includes mapping where in the Borough residents can access help and advice, where they can get online and also developing and communicating messages around benefits changes. The actual tasks agreed to achieve the aim are:

· collate and maintain up to date information on where people can get online, both independently and also with assisted help;

· collect intelligence on where there are gaps; · linking people into appropriate support/advice services; · consider a communications strategy around welfare reform changes and

development of a welfare reform webpage; · identify any services/community groups who would benefit from briefings on

welfare reform changes.

The first element of this work around mapping where people can get online and mapping access to appropriate advice and support services has been completed. Work has now commenced around website development which will incorporate this information along with information around welfare reform. In addition to residents being able to self-serve, all partners coming into contact with residents will have access to this information and will be able to make effective referrals to the relevant agency that can assist. Although we cannot alter the impact that welfare reform will have on our residents, we are hopeful that by providing access to services we will assist them in understanding the changes, be able to seek relevant advice and, moreover, be in a position to interact with a world that is becoming increasingly digital by default – such as universal credit claims being required to be made online. With thanks to Mandy Kinder, Tameside Council



Partnerships

The value of working with a range of partners was highlighted at a number of meetings, and included:

• frontline workers; • registered social landlords (RSLs) and housing officers; • grassroots organisations and food banks; • children’s centres; • general practitioners; • unions; • advice, information and guidance providers; • money advisers; • credit unions; • schools; • fairness commissions.

Frontline workers A ‘make every contact count’ approach was described in a number of locations, often with a focus on health professionals and social workers. This involves ensuring that frontline workers are aware of upcoming changes to the benefit system, as well as support networks to signpost people to. This meant that at every point of contact, families could become aware of welfare reforms and where to go to seek help.

Registered social landlords and housing officers A number of RSLs also adopted the ‘make every contact count’ approach, and worked with all of their staff, from handy-people to plumbers, to ensure that at every point of contact with a family, basic information about upcoming reforms, possible supports and signposting towards more evidence was made available. Housing officers in some areas had also been recruited to provide information to newly arrived tenants about local services, including social fund provisions. Many RSLs were also keen on providing as much information about welfare reforms and potential services to tenants as possible. Some RSLs were also looking to bring money advisers on to staff to help families budget as payments move to monthly. Many RSLs were also keen to establish transparent links with local authorities, so that mechanisms to ‘feed up’ case studies and persistent problems were developed.

Grassroots organisations and foodbanks Grassroots organisations were often able to offer a dual role in reducing child poverty at local levels, through providing real-time information about family needs to local authorities, and by being able to offer direct services themselves. For example, one organisation outlined its role in capturing data and stories, as well as providing advice, information and guidance:


41

The Broughton trust, capturing data and helping families

Data from food banks has also been described as useful (see page 33). Many grassroots organisations were also keen to establish transparent links with local authorities, so that mechanism to ‘feed up’ case studies and persistent problems were developed.

Children’s centres The role of children’s centres, as a good point of contact for young families, was also discussed a number of times.

General practitioners GPs surgeries were identified as a good place to contact ‘hard to reach’ families, and a number of local authorities had had some success in working with local surgeries to distribute information about welfare reforms. However the need to find the ‘right’ surgeries, and develop strong relationships with the practice managers appeared critical to the success of any relationship.

Unions Unions were also mentioned in one location as a potential partner, especially if advocating for a living wage.

Advice, information and guidance agencies Ensuring adequate advice, information and guidance (AIG) was discussed as critical to supporting families through these reforms. Many local authorities discussed mechanisms to improve the capacity of local AIG services, possibly by creating local welfare rights consortiums of different providers. See discussion on page 27.

Part of our remit as support workers (at the Broughton Trust) is to provide information, advice and guidance and recently we have had many of our service users approaching us for help with benefit changes, during this process a large number of individuals spoke to us in details about the effects of the changes to their day to day lives. Many are suffering from anxiety and are fearful of how the changes will affect them this is leading to health problems and depression.

We, at The Broughton Trust, started to record what our clients were telling us as and when the changes to their benefits started to take effect. We also noted their increasing fears as they believe it is going to put them in a more disadvantaged place and they already think they’re in a bad place as it is…’

They have case studies they can share, but importantly for other organisations, have some data about who is being affected and why. For example, ‘we have also dealt with ESOL learners being sanctioned on JSA as they don’t have great understanding of the action they must do for the job search’.

We also run a food bank where we record why and when a person has had to use it. With thanks to Tina Tudor from the Broughton Trust



Money advisers

With the move to monthly benefit payments, many local authorities were looking to ensure that money advisers were part of the ‘service mix’ available to support people moving on to universal credit. Embedding money advisers within youth services was also discussed as one way of potentially assisting young people to budget and encourage saving.

Credit unions

Credit unions were discussed as useful partners for their ability to: • increase financial inclusion, and provide services necessary to help families

manage their finances as universal credit is implemented; • support families to save, thereby reducing the need for shrinking social fund

replacement scheme budgets in times of crisis; • provide low-interest loans in case of a crisis, thereby challenging the use of

loan sharks; • provide financial literacy training.

Salford credit union: supporting young people to learn money management from an early age

Schools

Schools were often described as good partners, for both contacting affected families and also providing services. Services ranged from credit union contact points to measures to address food poverty. For example, St Patrick’s Primary School in Birmingham has been involved in contacting families in advance of various reforms, and introducing a credit union point to increase access to low interest loans. St Patrick’s school in Birmingham

Salford credit union has established collection points in a number of primary schools in the City. These are run by volunteers (usually parents or friends of the school) who organise regular collections (usually on a weekly basis) where pupils come and pay their savings in. Each child has a savings book so they can keep track of their money. They usually come to the credit union office once or twice a year to take out their savings, often for a holiday or for Christmas. We have heard lovely stories of children being paid small amounts of money by their parents for small jobs around the house, which they then pay in to their savings. A ‘savings bank’ at their own school gives them a good start in learning about the value of money and having control over their own money. The credit union is working with other schools to set up new collection points and hope to have them available across most schools that want them over the next year. With thanks to Sheila Murtagh, Chief Executive Officer, Salford credit union

The way they have been helping parents prepare for the welfare reforms is by introducing a credit union point in the school where parents and children are able to save each week rather than signing up for high percentage loans. The credit union has also helped provide parents with low interest loans and the children are saving for items they would like in the future through doing chores at home.


43

Schools were also described as good partners in tackling food poverty, through the provision of breakfast clubs and providing meals in afterschool clubs (see Beech Hill Primary as a case study on page 28).

Fairness and poverty commissions For local authorities with current commissions around fairness or poverty, there was extensive discussion around the ability to leverage the work of these groups to explore possibilities and propose longer-term solutions for families affected by welfare reforms. For local authorities without commissions, they were discussed as a potential way to keep child poverty high on the political agenda (see page 44).

Parents are also made aware of reform changes through a variety of ways such as newsletters and text messages. The local community law service has provided invaluable advice to both parents and staff about the key changes to the bedroom tax, universal credit etc. Organisations such as this where parents are able to come into a familiar setting and discuss worries and concerns are key to addressing the murkiness surrounding benefit reform changes. (The school hosts meetings with the local law service.)

Parents appreciate a text message, note, flyer, letter in the child's bag to update them of any upcoming events that will concern them. The local community law service has also offered to have a coffee morning workshop where parents and their children can go through their income and expenditure and where cuts can be identified in preparation for the welfare reform. With thanks to Lorraine Sergent, St Patrick's Catholic Primary School



Part three: Keeping child poverty high on the local agenda Outside of managing welfare reforms, local authorities mentioned that keeping child poverty high on the local agenda was critical to ensuring progress against poverty continued to be made locally. Many local authorities suggested that ‘buy in’ from councillors and key partners as critical to ensuring that child poverty continued to be a key priority in local authority planning. While there are many ways to achieve buy in, this report outlines two techniques that may be helpful:

• child poverty or fairness commissions; and • estimating the cost of child poverty locally.

Child poverty commissions There have been a number of child poverty commissions established around England, including Liverpool City Region Child Poverty and Life Chances Commission, the North East Child Poverty Commission, the Leicester City Child Poverty Commission and the Torbay Child Poverty Commission. These commissions vary in structure (some include councillors and MPs, some partners and academics) and focus (some address one local authority while others attempt joined up approaches across regions). Regardless of their diversity, they share a common aim, to establish a partnered approach to reducing child poverty locally. The Leicester child poverty commission

The experience of the Leicester child poverty commission highlights just how important local political leadership is to local child poverty strategies. When the city's local child poverty commission was established last year, CPAG accepted the invitation to join partly because we wanted to help improve the outcomes of local children but also because we wanted a deeper insight into the opportunities and challenges facing local authorities attempting to fulfil their statutory duty to tackle child poverty. Right from the beginning it was clear that the initiative had committed leadership support. One of the first actions of the commission, chaired by Deputy Mayor Rory Palmer and with members drawn from the council, the NHS and academia, was to gather senior officers and councillors from across the council for a presentation on why child poverty is a mayoral priority. As well as the council's own resources, the city's mayoral team also played a vital role in galvanising support from Leicester’s voluntary sector, the local media and the business community – the local chamber of commerce joined the commission and organised a successful business breakfast to discuss how local businesses could support the commission’s work. A key element of the city's successful child poverty conference in 2012 was its use of working groups making recommendations for what the council and its local partners could do to help low-income families with children. It was from this inclusive approach that the commission’s recommendations were developed. At the city's second child poverty conference, in May 2013, there was a strong focus on accountability, with information provided on how much progress had been made against each recommendation. Such openness strengthens engagement with local partners and suggests genuine leadership commitment, both of which are essential for local authorities looking to make a difference to the lives of children in low income families. With thanks to Imran Hussain, CPAG, and member of the Leicester Child Poverty Commission


45

Torbay child poverty commission

Estimating the cost of child poverty locally Many local authorities we spoke to were aware that poverty came with long-term costs, and that reducing child poverty could produce long-term economic savings. However, these costs were unarticulated and it was difficult for child poverty leads to convince councillors of the potential scope of the savings that could be made by addressing child poverty. One local authority had produced as estimate of the costs of child poverty, and outlined that this had been a useful tool in generating interest in the issue of poverty from a broad range of councillors and departments, so it was able to achieve greater ‘buy in’ from the different, but necessary, parts of the council. With this in mind, CPAG commissioned Loughborough University – who produces the national estimate for the costs of child poverty – to produce local authority estimates.

A national estimate of the cost of child poverty, 2013 The current, national cost of child poverty is estimated to be £29 billion per year, broken down into:

• £15 billion spent on services to deal with consequences of child poverty, such as increase NHS and school costs;

• £3.5 billion lost in tax receipts from people earning less as a result of having grown up in poverty;

• £2 billion spent on benefits for people spending more time out of work as a result of having grown up in poverty;

Like many seaside towns, Torbay’ s English riviera image while providing wonderful beaches, family holidays and great opportunities for the over 60s also belies one of the most depressed areas in the South West with high unemployment, high teenage pregnancy rates, low wages, a seasonal economy and a growing number of families living at or below the poverty line, many in private rented accommodation.

The Torbay Child Poverty Commission, established by Torbay Council and chaired by Michelle Kennedy (independent child poverty expert), has been set up to examine child poverty in the area, and to recommend how to mitigate its effects and tackle its causes. The commission was keen to have an independent chair to enable it to take external ‘soundings’, to challenge existing practice and to deliver hard-hitting messages back to the council and others. This is particularly important as Torbay Council has an elected mayor model of local government.

The commission is holding all of its meeting in public in local areas, hearing from experts and listening to the community. Priorities for evidence are: business and employment, financial inclusion and debt, housing, community and schools.

The commission members includes cross party councillors (including lead member for children’s services), business representation, voluntary and community sectors, the director of children’s services and Save The Children.

Findings will become part of Torbay’s child poverty work and lead to real change and as well as tackling issues and recommending changes during the life of the commission an interim report will be published in July 2013 with a final report in September. These will be used to help inform the Torbay child poverty strategy and action plan. With thanks to Michelle Kennedy



• £8.5 billion lost to individuals in net earnings (after paying tax).

Local estimates of the cost of child poverty, 2013 It is difficult to break down local authority costs by the root causes – for example, making it proportionate to service spending levels would not work because in places with more deprivation, a higher proportion of that cost could be saved by reducing poverty. Therefore, assuming that the cost is proportionate to the number of children in poverty in each local authority is a reasonable way to illustrate local costs. The figures below represent the total amount of money that is ‘lost’ in local authorities due to child poverty – reflecting extra expenditure and lost income, in effect, the amount of money that is drained from each area due to child poverty. Each child living below the poverty line is estimated to cost around £10,861.42 annually.


47

Estimates of the cost of child poverty in England

Local authority

Number of children in poverty

Annual cost £m Local authority


Annual cost £m

Adur 1,862 £20 Canterbury 5,551 £60 Allerdale 3,144 £34 Carlisle 3,468 £38 Amber Valley 3,717 £40 Castle Point 3,129 £34 Arun 5,036 £55

Central Bedfordshire 7,695 £84

Ashfield 5,255 £57 Charnwood 3,701 £40 Ashford 5,125 £56 Chelmsford 4,706 £51 Aylesbury Vale 4,896 £53 Cheltenham 3,529 £38 Babergh 2,328 £25 Cherwell 4,572 £50 Barking and Dagenham 16,437 £179 Cheshire East 9,749 £106 Barnet 14,060 £153

Cheshire West and Chester 11,345 £123

Barnsley 10,996 £119 Chesterfield 3,895 £42 Barrow-in-Furness 3,320 £36 Chichester 3,159 £34 Basildon 9,744 £106 Chiltern 2,165 £24 Basingstoke and Deane 5,525 £60 Chorley 2,940 £32 Bassetlaw 3,747 £41 Christchurch 1,207 £13 Bath and North East Somerset 4,056 £44 City of London 87 £1 Bedford 7,176 £78 Colchester 6,405 £70 Bexley 8,057 £88 Copeland 2,473 £27 Birmingham 84,114 £914 Corby 2,595 £28 Blaby 1,351 £15 Cornwall 18,068 £196 Blackburn with Darwen 10,795 £117 Cotswold 1,429 £16 Blackpool 9,498 £103 County Durham 27,230 £296 Bolsover 3,260 £35 Coventry 16,959 £184 Bolton 15,432 £168 Craven 695 £8 Boston 2,195 £24 Crawley 5,217 £57 Bournemouth 6,080 £66 Croydon 18,107 £197 Bracknell Forest 3,528 £38 Dacorum 4,910 £53 Bradford 33,172 £360 Darlington 5,680 £62 Braintree 5,242 £57 Dartford 4,202 £46 Breckland 4,190 £46 Daventry 1,675 £18 Brent 18,650 £203 Derby 12,398 £135 Brentwood 1,768 £19 Derbyshire Dales 1,017 £11 Brighton and Hove 11,278 £122 Doncaster 14,397 £156 Bristol, City of 21,366 £232 Dover 5,108 £55 Broadland 2,558 £28 Dudley 13,252 £144 Bromley 8,971 £97 Ealing 17,838 £194 Bromsgrove 1,249 £14

East Cambridgeshire 1,988 £22

Broxbourne 4,282 £47 East Devon 2,388 £26 Broxtowe 2,592 £28 East Dorset 1,439 £16 Burnley 5,857 £64 East Hampshire 2,868 £31 Bury 7,852 £85 East Hertfordshire 2,987 £32 Calderdale 9,054 £98 East Lindsey 4,876 £53 Cambridge 3,116 £34

East Northamptonshire 1,968 £21

Camden 10,629 £115 East Riding of Yorkshire 7,110 £77

Cannock Chase 3,360 £36 East Staffordshire 3,516 £38



Local authority




Annual cost £m

Eastbourne 4,536 £49 Ipswich 6,501 £71 Eastleigh 3,563 £39 Isle of Wight 6,179 £67 Eden 885 £10 Isles of Scilly £0 Elmbridge 3,256 £35 Islington 13,045 £142 Enfield 23,652 £257

Kensington and Chelsea 4,467 £49

Epping Forest 4358 £47 Kettering 2,761 £30 Epsom and Ewell 1,839 £20

King's Lynn and West Norfolk 5,615 £61

Erewash 3,831 £42 Kingston upon Hull, City of 17,124 £186

Exeter 3,451 £37 Kingston upon Thames 3,654 £40

Fareham 2,518 £27 Kirklees 18,032 £196 Fenland 4,172 £45 Knowsley 11,552 £125 Forest Heath 1,538 £17 Lambeth 16,004 £174 Forest of Dean 2,322 £25 Lancaster 4,939 £54 Fylde 1,687 £18 Leeds 31,795 £345 Gateshead 11,120 £121 Leicester 22,859 £248 Gedling 2,990 £32 Lewes 3,344 £36 Gloucester 5,433 £59 Lewisham 15,733 £171 Gosport 3,725 £40 Lichfield 2,110 £23 Gravesham 5,102 £55 Lincoln 4,033 £44 Great Yarmouth 5,180 £56 Liverpool 31,258 £340 Greenwich 13,866 £151 Luton 14,460 £157 Guildford 3,457 £38 Maidstone 5,461 £59 Hackney 18,337 £199 Maldon 1,744 £19 Halton 7,859 £85 Malvern Hills 1,506 £16 Hambleton 1,285 £14 Manchester 41,059 £446 Hammersmith and Fulham 8,365 £91 Mansfield 4,642 £50 Harborough 888 £10 Medway 14,141 £154 Haringey 17,786 £193 Melton 872 £9 Harlow 4,621 £50 Mendip 2,960 £32 Harrogate 2,007 £22 Merton 6,398 £69 Harrow 9,308 £101 Mid Devon 1,930 £21 Hart 1,839 £20 Mid Suffolk 2,065 £22 Hartlepool 7,005 £76 Mid Sussex 3,040 £33 Hastings 6,047 £66 Middlesbrough 12,300 £134 Havant 6,008 £65 Milton Keynes 13,591 £148 Havering 7,843 £85 Mole Valley 1,778 £19 Herefordshire, 4,018 £44 New Forest 5,012 £54 Hertsmere 3,350 £36

Newark and Sherwood 3,415 £37

High Peak 2,182 £24 Newcastle upon Tyne 17,622 £191

Hillingdon 12,701 £138 Newcastle-under-Lyme 3,609 £39

Hinckley and Bosworth 2,050 £22 Newham 25,400 £276 Horsham 3,083 £33 North Devon 2,744 £30 Hounslow 12,526 £136 North Dorset 1,433 £16 Huntingdonshire 4,550 £49

North East Derbyshire 2,437 £26

Hyndburn 4,815 £52 North East Lincolnshire 8,760 £95


49

Local authority




Annual cost £m

North Hertfordshire 3,701 £40 Salford 14,929 £162 North Kesteven 1,823 £20 Sandwell 20,911 £227 North Lincolnshire 6,324 £69 Scarborough 3,960 £43 North Norfolk 2,897 £31 Sedgemoor 3,836 £42 North Somerset 5,952 £65 Sefton 11,594 £126 North Tyneside 9,754 £106 Selby 1,782 £19 North Warwickshire 1,434 £16 Sevenoaks 3,531 £38 North West Leicestershire 2,305 £25 Sheffield 24,383 £265 Northampton 9,068 £98 Shepway 5,259 £57 Northumberland 13,453 £146 Shropshire 5,845 £63 Norwich 7,297 £79 Slough 8,953 £97 Nottingham 19,886 £216 Solihull 5,864 £64 Nuneaton and Bedworth 4,668 £51 South Bucks 1,624 £18 Oadby and Wigston 1,255 £14

South Cambridgeshire 3,031 £33

Oldham 15,981 £174 South Derbyshire 2,274 £25 Oxford 6,519 £71

South Gloucestershire 6,162 £67

Pendle 4,863 £53 South Hams 1,879 £20 Peterborough 11,090 £120 South Holland 2,306 £25 Plymouth 11,085 £120 South Kesteven 3,130 £34 Poole 4,647 £50 South Lakeland 1,542 £17 Portsmouth 11,105 £121 South Norfolk 2,947 £32 Preston 6,858 £74

South Northamptonshire 0

Purbeck 1,083 £12 South Oxfordshire 3,100 £34 Reading 7,798 £85 South Ribble 2,806 £30 Redbridge 14,750 £160 South Somerset 3,951 £43 Redcar and Cleveland 8,620 £94

South Staffordshire 1,852 £20

Redditch 3,122 £34 South Tyneside 9,496 £103 Reigate and Banstead 3,978 £43 Southampton 13,101 £142 Ribble Valley 763 £8 Southend-on-Sea 8,840 £96 Richmond upon Thames 2,686 £29 Southwark 14,791 £161 Richmondshire 759 £8 Spelthorne 3,234 £35 Rochdale 14,199 £154 St Albans 3,267 £35 Rochford 2,046 £22 St Edmundsbury 2,805 £30 Rossendale 2,841 £31 St. Helens 9,612 £104 Rother 3,472 £38 Stafford 2,193 £24 Rotherham 11,978 £130

Staffordshire Moorlands 1,553 £17

Rugby 2,275 £25 Stevenage 4,025 £44 Runnymede 2,168 £24 Stockport 9,763 £106 Rushcliffe 1,223 £13 Stockton-on-Tees 10,982 £119 Rushmoor 3,359 £36 Stoke-on-Trent 13,923 £151 Rutland 371 £4 Stratford-on-Avon 1,677 £18 Ryedale 790 £9 Stroud 2,417 £26



Local authority




Annual cost £m

Suffolk Coastal 2,912 £32 Warwick 2,253 £24 Sunderland 17,185 £187 Watford 3,207 £35 Surrey Heath 2,121 £23 Waveney 5,131 £56 Sutton 5,612 £61 Waverley 2,627 £29 Swale 7,846 £85 Wealden 3,630 £39 Swindon 7,821 £85 Wellingborough 2,861 £31 Tameside 12,098 £131 Welwyn Hatfield 3,673 £40 Tamworth 3,014 £33 West Berkshire 4,590 £50 Tandridge 2,204 £24 West Devon 1,222 £13 Taunton Deane 2,993 £33 West Dorset 2,067 £22 Teignbridge 3,369 £37 West Lancashire 4,313 £47 Telford and Wrekin 8,531 £93 West Lindsey 2,466 £27 Tendring 7,192 £78 West Oxfordshire 2,286 £25 Test Valley 3,099 £34 West Somerset 977 £11 Tewkesbury 2,048 £22 Westminster 10,490 £114 Thanet 8,314 £90

Weymouth and Portland 2,363 £26

Three Rivers 2,451 £27 Wigan 13,703 £149 Thurrock 8,392 £91 Wiltshire 10,926 £119 Tonbridge and Malling 4,041 £44 Winchester 2,544 £28 Torbay 5,970 £65

Windsor and Maidenhead 3,667 £40

Torridge 1,951 £21 Wirral 17,296 £188 Tower Hamlets 23,837 £259 Woking 3,108 £34 Trafford 7,722 £84 Wokingham 3,185 £35 Tunbridge Wells 3,506 £38 Wolverhampton 16,134 £175 Uttlesford 1,582 £17 Worcester 3,110 £34 Vale of White Horse 3,034 £33 Worthing 3,716 £40 Wakefield 13,428 £146 Wychavon 2,256 £25 Walsall 16,442 £179 Wycombe 5,838 £63 Waltham Forest 17,072 £185 Wyre 3,271 £36 Wandsworth 9,410 £102 Wyre Forest 3,136 £34 Warrington 6,591 £72 York 3,830 £42


51

Estimates of the cost of child poverty in Scotland

Local authority




Annual cost £m

Aberdeen City 5,368 58 Glasgow City 36,367 395 Aberdeenshire 4,571 50 Highland 6,576 71 Angus 3,319 36 Inverclyde 3,834 42 Argyll and Bute 2,209 24 Midlothian 3,108 34 Scottish Borders 2,937 32 Moray 2,205 24 Clackmannanshire 2,473 27 North Ayrshire 6,980 76 West Dunbartonshire 4,812 52 North Lanarkshire 15,680 170 Dumfries and Galloway 4,741 51 Orkney Islands 327 4 Dundee City 7,046 77 Perth and Kinross 3,083 33 East Ayrshire 5,484 60 Renfrewshire 6,630 72 East Dunbartonshire 2,189 24 Shetland Islands 340 4 East Lothian 2,948 32 South Ayrshire 3,868 42 East Renfrewshire 1,985 22 South Lanarkshire 11,580 126 Edinburgh, City of 14,363 156 Stirling 2,438 26 Falkirk 5,451 59 West Lothian 6,973 76 Fife 14,506 158 Eilean Siar 535 6

Estimates of the cost of child poverty in Northern Ireland

Local authority




Annual cost £m

Antrim 2,030 22 Down 3,505 38 Ards 2,662 29 Dungannon 2,967 32 Armagh 2,581 28 Fermanagh 2,802 30 Ballymena 2,455 27 Larne 1,214 13 Ballymoney 1,517 16 Limavady 2,232 24 Banbridge 1,709 19 Lisburn 6,421 70 Belfast 21,186 230 Magherafelt 2,035 22 Carrickfergus 1,454 16 Moyle 930 10 Castlereagh 1,924 21

Newry and Mourne 6,567 71

Coleraine 2,754 30 Newtownabbey 3,310 36 Cookstown 1,942 21 North Down 2,161 23 Craigavon 4,985 54 Omagh 2,947 32 Derry 10,382 113 Strabane 3,303 36



Estimates of the cost of child poverty in Wales Local authority


Annual cost £m

Isle of Anglesey/Ynys Môn 2,559 28 Gwynedd/Gwynedd 3,459 38 Conwy/Conwy 4,054 44 Denbighshire/Sir Ddinbych 4,075 44 Flintshire/Sir y Fflint 4,973 54 Wrexham/Wrecsam 5,290 57 Powys/Powys 3,007 33 Ceredigion/Ceredigion 1,913 21 Pembrokeshire/Sir Benfro 4,446 48 Carmarthenshire/Sir Gaerfyrddin 6,886 75 Swansea/Abertawe 9,926 108 Neath Port Talbot/Castell-nedd Port Talbot 7,103 77 Bridgend/ Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr 6,215 67 The Vale of Glamorgan/Bro Morgannwg 4,311 47 Rhondda Cynon Taf/Rhondda Cynon Taf 12,511 136 Merthyr Tydfil/Merthyr Tudful 3,424 37 Caerphilly/Caerffili 9,558 104 Blaenau Gwent/ Blaenau Gwent 4,227 46 Torfaen/Tor-faen 4,424 48 Monmouthshire/Sir Fynwy 2,055 22 Newport/Casnewydd 7,884 86 Cardiff/Caerdydd 17,440 189

These are credible estimates of costs of local poverty to your local authority, including the extra costs to social services, cost to housing services and health care, as well as lost earnings and reduced tax receipts.


53

Part four: Recommendations to central government At all of our meetings, we asked local authorities what messages they would like us to send back to central government. These included:

• There is a need to monitor local child poverty strategies, in order to keep them high on the political agenda locally. Some local authorities also mentioned the lack of clear timelines for production was a disincentive to producing them.

• Commit to an independent review of welfare reforms, to ensure the programme works as intend it to and that the impact on families is not more extensive than predicted.

• Funding for advice agencies is critical to ensure local authorities can support affected families. Central government has a role to play in ensuring funding to the advice, information and guidance sector continues.

• Provision for vulnerable groups needs to be made, to ensure that women fleeing domestic violence and families affected by mental health conditions, for example, are protected despite welfare reforms.

• Allow payroll deductions to credit unions. This administrative change would ensure that centrally employed civil servants could support credit unions, allowing them to support affected families in turn. Recent investments in credit union infrastructure will not be enough to allow credit unions to meet all the current unmet need, and with the introduction of universal credit, this need will only increase.

• Rethink and increase the discretionary housing payments budget. It is simply inadequate and will not allow local authorities to support families to transition through these reforms, without producing significant hardship.

• Settlements need to be revisited. Many local authorities feel they are suffering disproportionately from reductions in settlement, and these are often the areas that will have more families affected by reform in need of support.

• Meet families affected by welfare reforms. A number of local authorities and partners were keen to facilitate meetings between government officials and affected families, and they would be delighted to facilitate such meetings.

• Meet frontline staff supporting affected families. Staff in many of the local authorities and partner organisations we spoke to outlined how the scope and pace of reforms were increasing pressures on families and their workloads. Many were approaching ‘burnout’ and discussed the psychological distress they were experiencing as a result of watching families struggle. Many were keen to share their stories with government officials.

• Notify social landlords when claimants move on to universal credit. Many landlords have support packages ready to offer when households are transitioned on to universal credit, but they need to be notified in order to provide this support in good time.

• Provide clear and transparent reporting mechanisms to local authorities and partners, so they know how to feed issues and problems with welfare reform implementations up to central government. Currently, many are unsure about how to feed their experiences up to inform policy making.

• Develop a mechanism for collating and using foodbank statistics. These are available from all around the UK, and are rich and useful sources of data about the impact of reforms on the ground. Developing a central mechanism for collecting and analysing these should help inform more useful policy.



• Understand the impact of reforms on children. Where many other vulnerable groups are protected somewhat from the programmes of welfare reform, children remain vulnerable to its effects. Understanding the impacts of these reforms on children should help inform policies and encourage thinking about how to mitigate these effects.

local authorities and child poverty: balancing threats ... · local authorities and child poverty:...

Documents